Morris Minor Owners Club

taupe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:36 pm There should be a curve in the chassis rail there see pic...



mm rear shackle.jpg


Taupe

I agree. This was pointed out several posts ago .

I agree that the flange is slightly relieved in the area of the rear spring shackle rear mount having just checked the flange on my Minor which has not been repair welded. But the OP states that the original springs did not foul the flange so there has to be a difference in the springs.
I have sympathy with the OP not wanting to grind away the flange but that may be the only way forward if the springs currently fitted are to be used.

It's no good grinding away the flange if the bump stops are only half an inch from the chassis. You can cut an inch off the bump stops but this will increase the strain on the weak springs.

ManyMinors wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 7:58 am

taupe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:36 pm There should be a curve in the chassis rail there see pic...



mm rear shackle.jpg


Taupe

I agree. This was pointed out several posts ago .

Yes the slight cut away..... but not the upward curve of the rail at the rear sadly completely overlooked by most restorers and in the poor available repair panels...Hence posting the picture..

The answer of course is to trial fit the spring eye/shackle when welding the chassis and ensure that full travel can be attained fore/aft with the spring without hitting the chassis flange...

taupe

My chassis rail is original and has the clearance curve in it. I replaced the springs, they were the original thin section leaf, with new (thick)
Restoration went ahead over the next few years! and when we were finally mobile I found the spring rubbed the chassis. In hindsight I wish I had kept the original springs.
I ended up filing extra clearance.

Alan

alanworland wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 9:00 am My chassis rail is original and has the clearance curve in it. I replaced the springs, they were the original thin section leaf, with new (thick)
Restoration went ahead over the next few years! and when we were finally mobile I found the spring rubbed the chassis. In hindsight I wish I had kept the original springs.
I ended up filing extra clearance.

Alan

From what I can see I suspect the new springs are slightly longer or lie flatter than the old ones which means that the rear shackle leans further back at rest..

Alan - Interesting that your new spring rubbed the chassis and it is a pretty close fit there ........did you file a flat or a clearance groove on the oversize eye or file off metal from the chassis flange for clearance?

I think I would have done the eye as long as the early spring type thickness was maintained...it would only need to be a couple of mm deep by the look of it.

Taupe

They didn't touch all the time only on big deflections but I did take metal from the chassis rail, wasn't a great deal but annoying non the less.
It seems the springs from the axle back should be shorter allowing the shackle to be more vertical at rest?

Alan

No wonder people are having problems if panels and springs etc. are not up to scratch. There is no substitue for quality made parts.

Sorry for the long pause, I have now modified the chassis rails by cutting out a nice curve for the spring

The Spring pulled with a ratchet strap to its flat position
. .
I marked the rail at the point of greatest travel
.
The end result but with the axle having no weight at all on.
. .
The short drive was great no knocking or any thing else, I did fit all new poly bushes front and back so it should last a while now.
Just need to treat the exposed metal now and it'e ready.

Thanks for all the comments and advice.